I know what I want to ask. On p 3 of the Hobby Lobby ruling we are told that the purpose of granting rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers and employees. What’s to prevent a group of shareholders and/or employees from counter-suing to seek protection for *their* rights?

Why do the putative rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby get to trump the rights of all those other people? There’s bound to be a cacophony of religious beliefs in play, including zero religious beliefs; what can be the rationale for protecting some at the expense of all the others?

Comments

Isn’t birth control typically included with the other medications that the insurance carrier covers? If so, how is Hobby Lobby able to exclude that handful of meds, esp. when many women take BC pills for a variety of health issues and not even as contraception? And what’s to stop a company from saying they won’t cover any other medication? They could decide it’s “God’s will” that you have heart disease, COPD, etc., and that you are prolonging your earthly existence.

I would ask them how Hobby Lobby can refuse to fund contraception coverage for its female employees when Hobby Lobby invests in companies that produce contraceptives. Wouldn’t the contraception coverage for its female employees be good for business all around in this case?